i was too...than i read this...
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer...hed-amds-mid-range-radeon-hd-7870-gpu-compute
basicly, nvidia traded alot of the gpgpu for gaming performance...
FINALLY, someone realized that DP performance is useless for us...gj nvidia
Why am I using the GTX285 which was a refresh products price?
Why am I omitting the GTX280 which came before it and released at $650, which was then reduced because AMD had strong cards and undercut Nvidia badly?
A tradition that was broken by the release of the 7970.
Should I expect the 680 to be $650 now, just $100 more for 18% more performance, better perf/watt, better driver support, better extras? 3+1 display support, CUDA, PhysX?
I guess I should, huh... Anything less than $650 is a gift from the best company ever, Nvidia. :thumbsup:
Take OP with a grain of salt, especially the efficiency chart (EDIT: which does NOT link to anything other than what the OP linked to, but I will take down the link just in case, due to someone complaining about a virus)
Cross check those numbers with legit reviews of the 7970 and 580 (compare 7970 vs 580, is it really 17%? Looks like 42% more perf/watt according to http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/HD_7970/29.html ).
Ohh well played sir
I guess we'll just have to see, I seem to remember naysayers of what we've seen here... Many of them. Yet here it is, perhaps Nvidia isn't the awful company that consumes small children to create inferior products they seem to be portrayed as around here.
If what we see is true, Nvidia isn't premium pricing at all - from ~$500/600 > ~$550.
I'd say it'd be better than whats currently available but not ideal. 1080p is usually semi budget gamer territory. They'll be looking for cards in the $300 range.
Tom's and most sites use total system power draw to determine performance per watt. TPU uses just the power into the card, and so their results will show greater variation than most sites.
NVM, we've been down this road before. Clearly unbias people only point fingers in one direction. I'd rather not set off any red flags.
perhaps Nvidia isn't the awful company that consumes small children to create inferior products they seem to be portrayed as around here.
What are you talking about?
How is it pointing fingers that AMD raised prices by 50 percent? And moved from the performance to enthusiast sector with pricing? They did and probably had logical reasons for doing so.
<Borat> Very Nice! </Borat>
Bring on the overclocking results
What are you talking about?
How is it pointing fingers that AMD raised prices by 50 percent? And moved from the performance to enthusiast sector with pricing? They did and probably had logical reasons for doing so.
I'd imagine it might see a price drop, but just look at these results it seems clear that the 680 will only hold an advantage in single monitor resolutions, particularly 1080p.
the 680 really starts to lose its lead at 2560 resolutions, and I'd wager will lose even more ground when we kick things up to triple monitor setups, even in CFX vs. SLI because the memory buffer and bandwidth does not carry over, the 7970's 3GB buffer and 384bit interface will make all the difference.
.
Hell, we're looking at $500+ for a chip that most here initially argued would be the GTX 460 successor.
I find that VERY doubtful. Take the AT review of Metro 2033 at 1200p for instance. 54 fps vs. 44.5 fps. And then look at system power draw: 391 vs. 425 watts. So you have 21.3% more performance and 8% less power draw. Overall perf/watt goes up ~30% even if you look at the entire system.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/5261/amd-radeon-hd-7970-review/27
http://www.anandtech.com/show/5261/amd-radeon-hd-7970-review/17
And to get a 72% increase in perf/watt over the GTX 580 when the performance is only ~20% faster than the 7970 would imply a laughable power draw.
Edit to add: I don't mean that I find your logic doubtful, just that even using system power draws and assuming roughly comparable test machines, it's pretty clear that 7970 is more than 17% more efficient than 580 even if you look at system total power draw rather than the card itself. Something doesn't add up. The chart can't be right... maybe the 680 isn't as fast as the charts say, or it eats up way more power, or something, but 72% more efficient than the 580 even at the system level (which would imply what, almost DOUBLE the efficiency of the 580 when comparing card vs card?) is outrageous and would mean a HUGE coup by Nvidia.
Given the obvious error when comparing the 7970 to the 580, I think the simpler explanation is that one or more of these slides is or are wrong.
nVidia didn't raise prices by almost 50% (GTX280 adjusted MSRP/GTX 285 MSRP -> GTX 480 MSRP)? They both raise prices. But claiming it's all AMD's fault we're looking at a $550 price point is what I'm arguing against. Both companies got us to this point. Yet someone openly says nVidia doesn't premium price? Hell, we're looking at $500+ for a chip that most here initially argued would be the GTX 460 successor.